Boards

"Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention. Stephen, as I pointed out in the article was a charming and sweet man who entertained millions.

However, the point of my column – which I wonder how many of the people complaining have fully read – was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, his death raises many unanswered questions. That was all. Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything. However, it seems unlikely to me that what took place in the hours immediately preceding Gately’s death – out all evening at a nightclub, taking illegal substances, bringing a stranger back to the flat, getting intimate with that stranger – did not have a bearing on his death. At the very least, it could have exacerbated an underlying medical condition.

The entire matter of his sudden death seemed to have been handled with undue haste when lessons could have been learned. On this subject, one very important point. When I wrote that ‘he would want to set an example to any impressionable young men who may want to emulate what they might see as his glamorous routine’, I was referring to the drugs and the casual invitation extended to a stranger. Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.

In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones."

She's right in a way- it would be extremely mischievious to suggest the bogoted witch had anything like the literary nuance to subtly disguise the homophobia to the extent it was only evident in undertones.

I hope that even if it's for the wrong reasons some of The Mail's readership deserts it. Of course, it's fairly obvious that a lot of people are only outraged because it's someone from Boyzone who's been so shabbily treated in this story but (as the monkey said when he pissed in the sea) every little helps.

was the way that she led with this horribly crass article, then blithely went on to "hey, look, the Nolan sisters are FAT! LOL!". I really need to phone my Daily Mail-reading Grandma and find out what her take is on it all (although she'll probably just ask me if I've seen how fat the Nolan sisters are looking now).

I'm not really that sure that it's the celebrity involvement that's got people so het up. I think it's more the incredibly vile nature of her conjecture and the absurdly insensitve timing of the editorial's (and let's be clear here, it's not an article) publication.

I think Charlie Brooker made a link to the PCC website in his coli=umn but other than that the backlash was fairly instantaneous and spontaneous. I'm sure more people were lead to the article via Twitter/FB status updates or boards like these, but that can be construed at worst as an ad hoc sharing of readily-available imformation, not an orchestrated campaign.

...but not really in a cynical way. Orchestrated doesn't really mean it's fake. In a way that could ONLY be made possible by the internet, yes. But that's it, you write SHIT you're going to pay for it, if it's SHIT enough.

A lot of people wouldn't have complained if Brooker et al. hadn't told/asked/linked them to...but it's a bit like the Scooby Doo villain saying he would have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids. Well, you didn't so, tough luck.

but in addition to Charlie Brooker, don’t forget that Stephen Fry and Derren Brown (two of the UK’s most followed twitterers) also posted the link and a note saying which clauses of the PCC code to quote in a complaint. There have been numerous facebook groups, so I can kinda see where she’s coming from.

What scares her, and the Daily Mail, is that – unlike the ‘Sachsgate’ affair – everyone is actually able to read the article and make up their own mind should they want to – it’s not as if the only way to see it is second-hand through the descriptions of others. The fact that everything kicked off during the course of one single day, in between issues of the paper also demonstrates that newspapers are not able to keep pace with the modern world now. She, and the paper, have been made to feel powerless.

From her statement: "Yes, anyone can die at anytime of anything."
From her original piece: "Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."

It seems easy for people to get het up about something that all-in-all isn't particularly divisive. I mean, for chrissakes, Mail readers were getting angry about it.

Yeah, it's unbelievable the article was published given the legal ramifications BUT that's what she THINKS. She's a columnist, they write a lot of shit. I'm a bit dismayed by all the self-righteousness and calls for banning and firing.

(I kind of agree. Social networking can collectively pat itself on the back safe in the knowledge that no one who reads the Daily Mail gives a shit what it thinks nor are they going to stop reading the paper over a column that was written exactly how it was meant to be written, unfortunately.)

I just hate all this 'KILL THE HOMOPHOBE' stuff. I love how the internet inspires all these liberal moral panics - let's get really upset about this thing collectively that no-one really cares about otherwise so we don't address more contentious issues, like all the rubbish regularly spewed out by the Mail, Express and Telegraph.

What has been inspired here, in my opinion, is the ire of: a lot of gay people who have been very offended by the article; people who are fans of Boyzone and Gately; people who dislike public bullying (and I would accept that depending on the violence of the reaction that there could be some irony there)and also many people who hate the Daily Mail (like myself) who are able to seize on this very public faux-pas to give the paper a verbal kicking. It might achieve very little but it feels good. What's wrong with that?

I think you're really quite wrong to say that this is something that 'no-one really cares about'. You may not care about it but that's really not the same thing. At all.

is that there's a general superficial acceptance that homophobia is wrong. This woman looks like a complete freak. We're still in a culture with loads of weird homophobia on television, lots of comedy centred around gay stereotypes, gay bashings on the street (so says Peter Tatchell). Admittedly this was far worse given the timing/factual failures/ and well, who needs an excuse to get annoyed at the daily mail?

All I'm saying is that people don't seem to give much of a shit the rest of the time that there is an insidiuous homophobia in the culture and it seems a bit of a witchhunt. Everyone - mail readers and liberals - can agree on this because it's glaringly wrong, but what about other more long-term, more important issues around homophobia?

I suggest to you that as overblown as this whole undoubtedly is that every once in a while it's incidents like this that push things forward. Public opinion changes in increments. Little things help and they can come from the unlikeliest sources.

People who wouldn't have noticed this nasty article if it was about someone less loved/famous individual have perhaps been influenced a little in the right direction.

I wouldn't personally call for her head professionally, I just like calling her a cunt, 'cos she clearly is. I'm unsure how many people out of those taken back by the article genuinely would want her fired/banned from writing. Sure, the PCC has recieved upwards of 1000 complaints but I'd guess that's pretty small-fry compared to how many people saw the article, thought "what a cunt" and then expressed that sentiment to someone else without demanding some drastic action.

I think it's slightly disingenous to talk about this in terms of it being her opinion. This isn't a censorship debate. It's worth pointing out here that her assertion that Gately's lifestyle was somehow responsible for his untimely death completely contradicts the readily available preliminary post-mortem report. There isn't scope for a newspaper columnist's opinion on a matter a qualified professional has already had their say on, such as cause of death.

really, but i just found it a bit depressing reading his half-arsed response to the jan moir article, devoid of any analysis or insight, or subtlety, applauded by a bunch of complete chumps. that's all.

i read the article, i don't remember finding it particularly lacking in analysis or insight, it seemed like a strong summation of mood, of the problems people had with the article, that sort of thing. it wasn't meant to be tremendously high-brow but why should it be?

although if you can point me in the direction of an article that included that analysis and insight you were craving, while still being accessible and avoiding becoming so dry as to alienate people and thus be pointless, i'd very much like a read

I think part of the reason her piece has caused such a stir is more that it breaks basic social etiquette. I can accept that people think differently to me. I can almost accept that people are going to have different attitudes to homosexuality to me. I have to, in order to forge any sort of relationship with the multitude of different people I come into contact with. What I'm much less inclined to accept is someone who makes thinly-veiled accusations about a recently deceased person just before their funeral, in the full knowledge that such accusations will prove hurtful to various people who already have a big reason to hurt. Be a Tory, that's fine. But be a Tory with some grasp of sensitivity, of timeliness.

People get very upset by factual errors all the time. Why wouldn't they?

What I mean is that most people at least resentfully manage to co-exist with people that hold different political views to them. It would still be nice if people knew when it was appropriate to air these views. Being specifically Tory has nowt to do with it, I'd just presumed (perhaps incorrectly but I doubt it) that Moir is.

As to the politics of those who work at the paper my experience suggests that it's the job of the editors to make sure a piece reflects the paper's politics and those of their staff haven't much to do with it.

However on this occasion I feel that you're wrong: the opprobrium is fully justified. For all the Mail's bellyaching about 'broken Britain', I think it's actually a sign that this country has gone horribly wrong when someone can be paid as much as Jan Moir possibly is to basically piss all over the memory of someone who never did anything to her or anyone else when his body isn't even in the ground yet - what the hell happened to common decency?

And then there's the consideration that a publication as widely-read as The Mail can get away with putting out Op-Eds that just don't give a fuck about accuracy or any other kind of standards that the rest of us are held to in our jobs and personal lives on pain of dismissal. Indeed, my opinion is that Moir's greatest crime was to suggest that cannabis, drinking, clubbing or sex played any part in the man's death when the results of the post mortem had already been known for DAYS. That to me is unforgivable and the penalty should be public and severe. Stoning, or something - I'm not fussed about the details.

but there does seem to be a trend amongst some people to show how outraged they are by something with no other intention of following up their initial statement or doing something about it but just simply posting on various media how outraged they are.

when they talk about having freedom of speech and that (everyone has the right to make themselves look like a reactionary bigot, if they want), but that doesn’t excuse the fact that section 5 of the Code says, “i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.”, and that she made several baseless speculations which were contrary to the report of a trained coroner and doctor. Are the PCC suggesting that an uninformed opinion that disregards simple, stated facts is now ‘freedom of speech’ and not worthy of censure or correction?

is whether this sets some kind of precedent? I mean, I know some journalists don't take doing research or using the facts too seriously anyway, but this tacit approval effectively legitimises this doesn't it?